A strong criticism aimed at the U.S. Supreme Court following the recent ruling on his tariff powers. The ruling took place around February 20-23, 2026, regarding the Court's 6-3 decision in cases such as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The main context of the ruling - the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 1977) does not allow the President to impose broad tariffs (such as 'reciprocal' tariffs or drug-related tariffs that Trump imposed on imports from various countries). - The Court emphasized that tariffs are a form of tax/duties under the authority of Congress according to Article I of the Constitution, and the language of IEEPA regarding the regulation of 'imports' through licenses or other measures does not clearly authorize the President to impose unlimited tariffs. - This ruling invalidates a large portion of the tariffs that Trump imposed in 2025 (based on the national emergency declaration regarding trade deficits and the drug flow). - The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with a 6-3 ratio (some conservative justices joined the majority; the minority included Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh). Analyzing Trump's post and statements Trump sarcastically wrote that the ruling inadvertently granted him more power even though it was a defeat: - He used the lowercase 'supreme court' to express 'disrespect'. - He argued that the ruling allows the use of 'Licenses' to impose 'horrible' measures on foreign countries (especially those 'taking advantage of America' like China), and questioned why America could not collect 'license fees' (tariffs disguised as fees). - He claimed the ruling approved the use of other types of tariffs more strongly and 'obnoxiously', with legal certainty. - He called the Court 'ineffective' and predicted they would soon rule in favor of China (for example, regarding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, relating history to 'children of slaves' after the Civil War). - Ending with the familiar slogan: 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' In reality, the ruling is a significant blow to Trump's broad tariff agenda under emergency powers. It limits his ability to unilaterally impose unlimited tariffs without clearer authorization from Congress. However, Trump quickly pivoted: - Just hours after the ruling, he announced/signed a global tariff of 10% (later raised to 15% according to some reports), using other legal bases such as Section 122 or 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. - He emphasized that 'other alternative options' exist, including restricting import licenses or other trade laws, to continue pressuring trade partners. This aligns with the tone of the post: turning legal defeat into a claim of 'surprising strength' while pledging to ramp up trade policy. This is Trump's typical style - challenging, personally attacking agencies, and reframing failure into victory amid the ongoing trade war. If you are following the impact on the crypto market (with handle @KanTCryptoNews), note that the ruling causes short-term volatility (dollar down, gold up due to instability), but Trump's alternatives still maintain pressure on global trade. Let me know if you want more information on the potential impact or other related posts! 🚀#bnb #BTC☀️